cybrwzrd:It may be an oxymoron to call myself this - but I think I am a progressive libertarian. I will always deeply believe that limited government is the best way to govern, with as few laws as necessary to provide for a cohesive society. I also understand that most people are greedy assholes and will abuse any political system to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Due to this, there needs to be a safety net to prevent the powerful/rich from abusing the weak/poor. The powerful/rich also need to be prevented from gaining too much power by stacking the deck in their own favor by buying politicians - even if it means sky-high taxes to prevent massive wealth accumulation and policies that prevent intergenerational wealth transfer.

I know that the left tries to portray libertarianism as the belief system of right wing religious loonies and fascist-capitalists, but both of these groups want to use the rule of law to benefit their agenda. There is nothing libertarian about allowing looters of any group (in this case the investor class/corporate types and religious fanatics) to use the force of law to stack the deck in their favor. These people are no more Libertarian than Evangelicals are Christian. These types believe that freedom is the right to never be held accountable for doing the wrong thing as long as you benefit from doing the wrong thing. Rand herself would be against that - it is called irrational selfishness or greed.

In my younger days I was an objectivist. I still am in many ways. I do believe in the Randian idea of rational selfishness. That is - doing what is best for yourself as long as it does not harm another. If you are a liberal and you think that you know the actual philosophy behind Objectivism just from osmosis by reading about it as told by looter-objectivists (most "Libertarians", tea party members, facist-capitalists, etc) then you might as well have formed your opinions about Judasim as told by the Iranians. The whole idea of objectivis ...

cybrwzrd:It may be an oxymoron to call myself this - but I think I am a progressive libertarian. I will always deeply believe that limited government is the best way to govern, with as few laws as necessary to provide for a cohesive society. I also understand that most people are greedy assholes and will abuse any political system to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Due to this, there needs to be a safety net to prevent the powerful/rich from abusing the weak/poor. The powerful/rich also need to be prevented from gaining too much power by stacking the deck in their own favor by buying politicians - even if it means sky-high taxes to prevent massive wealth accumulation and policies that prevent intergenerational wealth transfer.

I know that the left tries to portray libertarianism as the belief system of right wing religious loonies and fascist-capitalists, but both of these groups want to use the rule of law to benefit their agenda. There is nothing libertarian about allowing looters of any group (in this case the investor class/corporate types and religious fanatics) to use the force of law to stack the deck in their favor. These people are no more Libertarian than Evangelicals are Christian. These types believe that freedom is the right to never be held accountable for doing the wrong thing as long as you benefit from doing the wrong thing. Rand herself would be against that - it is called irrational selfishness or greed.

In my younger days I was an objectivist. I still am in many ways. I do believe in the Randian idea of rational selfishness. That is - doing what is best for yourself as long as it does not harm another. If you are a liberal and you think that you know the actual philosophy behind Objectivism just from osmosis by reading about it as told by looter-objectivists (most "Libertarians", tea party members, facist-capitalists, etc) then you might as well have formed your opinions about Judasim as told by the Iranians. The whole idea of objectivis ...

iawai:Mercutio74: Was it lack of government regulation in the countries that were providing the sweatshop labour? I think a strong argument could be made to support that point of view.

NEEK SEES SOLUTION. ONE BIG CAVE FOR WHOLE LAND. NEEK NOT MEAN THAT.

Mercutio74: In a true libertarian society, there wouldn't have been any liability. It would have just been "an unfortunate incident" and the free market would somehow be left to clean it up. Any insurance claims would be between the insurance companies and the policy holders and BP wouldn't have to pay anything.

NEEK NOT BUY FERMENTED AMINAL CARCASS FROM BP NO MORE. NO CAVEMAN BUY. NEEK WOULD NOT LET MEN WHO LEFT DIRTY WATER BACK INTO NEEK'S CIRCLE.

Mercutio74: Yes, that was terrible. I think the gov't should have purchased the financial institutions, made real laws that would prevent the global collapse from happening again, and then sold the financial institutions back to whoever wanted to buy them... but in smaller pieces. Again, I see this as a failure of government to regulate properly. The bailout, as terrible as it was, also prevented many regular citizens from losing everything they own. The government should have taken more control over the "rescued" corporations.

BIG CAVE HAD TOTAL CONTROL. BIG CAVE NEVER REGULATE PROPERLY IF BIG CAVE ONLY REGULATOR WITHOUT NEEK ABLE GIVE ROCKS TO OTHER REGULATORS.

NEEK SEEM TOO CONVINCED OF POWER OF NEEK ROCKS. PROBLEM IS MANY PRIVATE CAVES NOT CARE ABOUT NEEK ROCKS IF UGG AND BRUGG GIVE ROCKS INSTEAD. NEEK ASSUME ALL CAVEMEN RATIONAL ROCK USERS. NOT TRUE. OFTEN CIRCUMSTANCES AND IRRATIONALITY MAKE ROCK CHOICES.

IF PRIVATE CAVES DO WRONG BUT UGG AND BRUGG STILL GIVE ROCKS, NEEK NOT HAVE ANSWER. NEEK GIVE IN OR STARVE BECAUSE NEEK GIVE UP POLITICAL POWER FOR ILLUSION OF FREEDOM. NEEK FORGET THAT ALL AUTHORITY NOT BAD.

INSTEAD, IF NEEK KEEP BIG CAVE, NEEK HAVE VOTE AT COUNCIL FIRE, SAME AS UGG AND BRUGG. BIG CAVE MUST LISTEN TO ALL VOICES AT COUNCIL FIRE. IF NEEK PERSUASIVE THEN BIG CAVE LISTEN.

NEEK VOTE NEVER DEPRECIATE. NEEK FORGET DEMOCRACY IS SMART WAY. NEEK TOO WORRIED ABOUT PUBLIC AUTHORITY BECAUSE NEEK SEE IT. NEEK SHOULD FEAR PRIVATE AUTHORITY BECAUSE NEEK HAVE NO RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE. SURE, NEEK HAVE SHINY ROCKS, BUT PRIVATE CAVE MAY BE WILLING TO PASS ON NEEK ROCKS TO F*CK NEEK OVER IF NEXT NEEK JUST FALL IN LINE.

FloydA:[i105.photobucket.com image 338x450]GRUNG LIKE STONE BUTTS ME NO CAN LIECRO-MAGNON NO CAN DENYWHEN FEMALE WALK WITH BLOBBY SAGGY WAISTAND TWO BOULDERS IN GRUNG FACEME START DROOLIN' AND ME NO FOOLIN'THAT BUTT BEST IN WHOLE ACHEULEANME WANT GIVE YOU A LIFTAND CARVE YOU PETROGLYPHNEANDERTALS CALLED ME SICKBUT THAT BUTT YOU GOT'S PALEOLITHIC!

This is the only post I read in this entire trainwreck of a thread. Thank you.

1) It exists at the upper echelon of the wealthy. No matter what country they come from, Sweden, China, USA, Mexico, they all compete generally "outside of the control of any specific government."

2) It exists at a level below the government's reach (remember we are talking about rules other than the ones preventing hurting other people etc). There are people living day to day without any concern for the government all over the world, including the US. You can shop for many goods on the black market, or maybe sometimes pay a little sales tax in some places, but that is about it. (Think about illegal immigrants in this sense)

Point is, that it is really only the middle class that is trapped by, gets the benefits of, and supports a government. Everybody else could give a flying f*ck.

The real issue that nobody ever seams to talk about (maybe because it is defeatist) is that there are generally two types of people (based on raw human nature) 1) those that will always seeks out and use power to their advantage, and 2) those that don't have power, either through choice or poor circumstances.

Second, there will always be a consolidation of power towards the first group. It doesn't matter if it is via corporations in a purely capitalist society or the legislature in a socialist society. Powerful people will take over the most powerful positions and use them to their own benefit. Libertarianism is the only ideal that at least attempts to give the power back to every individual, such that it is the individual's fault if it is lost or given up.

And no, Somalia is not a libertarian lifestyle, it is ruled by warlords. Warlords have the power not the greater population of individuals. Like I said, there will always be a consolidation of power towards the powerful, even under a libertarianism effort.

I am pretty sure that a nation run on libertarian ideals would lead to warlords, rule by Mafia or somewhere in between.

Somebody will always come along and take the reins. I would rather have a halfway-honest government (ours is, compared to some other countries) dominating me than endure warlord rape and pillage, or Mafia shakedowns.

iawai:gameshowhost: Z-clipped: Libertarianism is a position based on oversimplifications and naive assumptions about human nature. I find most libertarians to be a bit silly with regard to the real-world implications of their philosophy, but I wouldn't really call them "obnoxious assholes".

TONDA JUST WANT TAKE OVER GOVERNMENT THEN LEAVE EVERYONE ALONE. ALSO JUST GET RID OF RULES OF FAIR GAME SO TONDA ASSURED MOST SHINY ROCKS, SINCE TONDA ALREADY HAVE MORE SHINY ROCKS THAN OTHERS. TONDA KNOW THAT TONDA EARN PILE OF SHINY ROCKS WHEN TONDA BORN, SINCE TONDA'S FATHER EARN SHINY ROCKS SAME WAY.

cybrwzrd:It may be an oxymoron to call myself this - but I think I am a progressive libertarian. I will always deeply believe that limited government is the best way to govern, with as few laws as necessary to provide for a cohesive society. I also understand that most people are greedy assholes and will abuse any political system to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Due to this, there needs to be a safety net to prevent the powerful/rich from abusing the weak/poor. The powerful/rich also need to be prevented from gaining too much power by stacking the deck in their own favor by buying politicians - even if it means sky-high taxes to prevent massive wealth accumulation and policies that prevent intergenerational wealth transfer.

I know that the left tries to portray libertarianism as the belief system of right wing religious loonies and fascist-capitalists, but both of these groups want to use the rule of law to benefit their agenda. There is nothing libertarian about allowing looters of any group (in this case the investor class/corporate types and religious fanatics) to use the force of law to stack the deck in their favor. These people are no more Libertarian than Evangelicals are Christian. These types believe that freedom is the right to never be held accountable for doing the wrong thing as long as you benefit from doing the wrong thing. Rand herself would be against that - it is called irrational selfishness or greed.

In my younger days I was an objectivist. I still am in many ways. I do believe in the Randian idea of rational selfishness. That is - doing what is best for yourself as long as it does not harm another. If you are a liberal and you think that you know the actual philosophy behind Objectivism just from osmosis by reading about it as told by looter-objectivists (most "Libertarians", tea party members, facist-capitalists, etc) then you might as well have formed your opinions about Judasim as told by the Iranians. The whole idea of objectivis ...

Why can't this be in the normal politics threads, instead of way towards the back of Great Caveman Thread?

iawai:Kittypie070: iawai: NEEK HAVE NO REASON TO TRUST BIG CAVE. BIG CAVE HAS DONE GOOD, BUT IT COME FROM BAD PLACE. NEEK WANT KNOW WHAT GOOD HAPPEN WITHOUT BIG CAVE DOING BAD FIRST. NEEK WILL HELP GROG AND THAG AND ALL STOP BAD THAT BIG CAVE NOT EVEN STOP NOW.

GREAT WORD OF ELDERS IS BAD PLACE!!??

ONLY ELDERS SAY THEIR WORD IS GREAT. ONLY ROCKS SPENT ON DOING GOOD COME FROM CAVE OF NEEK. ELDERS KEEP MANY ROCKS BEFORE DO GOOD.

MAUG STARING AT NEEK, TOO STUPEFIED TO POKE.

THINKS NEEK EATING SHROOMS.

GREAT WORD OF ELDERS IS WHERE RIGHT TO USE SHARP STICKS IS SPELLED OUT SO CAVEMANKIND MAY READ IT AND REMEMBER IT.

ALONG WITH OTHER NINE SPELLED OUT RIGHTS, WHICH CAVEMANKIND HAS ALWAYS HAD, SPELLED OUT OR NOT.

cybrwzrd:It may be an oxymoron to call myself this - but I think I am a progressive libertarian. I will always deeply believe that limited government is the best way to govern, with as few laws as necessary to provide for a cohesive society. I also understand that most people are greedy assholes and will abuse any political system to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Due to this, there needs to be a safety net to prevent the powerful/rich from abusing the weak/poor. The powerful/rich also need to be prevented from gaining too much power by stacking the deck in their own favor by buying politicians - even if it means sky-high taxes to prevent massive wealth accumulation and policies that prevent intergenerational wealth transfer.

I know that the left tries to portray libertarianism as the belief system of right wing religious loonies and fascist-capitalists, but both of these groups want to use the rule of law to benefit their agenda. There is nothing libertarian about allowing looters of any group (in this case the investor class/corporate types and religious fanatics) to use the force of law to stack the deck in their favor. These people are no more Libertarian than Evangelicals are Christian. These types believe that freedom is the right to never be held accountable for doing the wrong thing as long as you benefit from doing the wrong thing. Rand herself would be against that - it is called irrational selfishness or greed.

In my younger days I was an objectivist. I still am in many ways. I do believe in the Randian idea of rational selfishness. That is - doing what is best for yourself as long as it does not harm another. If you are a liberal and you think that you know the actual philosophy behind Objectivism just from osmosis by reading about it as told by looter-objectivists (most "Libertarians", tea party members, facist-capitalists, etc) then you might as well have formed your opinions about Judasim as told by the Iranians. The whole idea of objectivis ...

cybrwzrd:In my younger days I was an objectivist. I still am in many ways. I do believe in the Randian idea of rational selfishness. That is - doing what is best for yourself as long as it does not harm another

The trouble is that it's nothing more than a trite platitude that really means absolutely nothing. Most of the time people don't realize how their actions hurt others until the shiat hits the fan. You want to build a swimming pool. You stomp up and down that city has zoning laws that you have to follow, and that it's your property and you should do whatever you damn well feel like. Great philosophy, until you built a cheap swimming pool that leaks and contaminates all your neighbor's property and water supply.

The bottomline is society in order to function properly needs things that are not necessarily profitable to properly function, and therefore we can't depend on private enterprises to provide them in lieu of government. It's not unlike having roommates. The "You do your thing, and I'll do mine" philosophy can works well when you live by yourself or maybe have one or two roommates. When you're sharing a house with 20 people, you better have some house rules in place or else it's going to turn into a zoo.

qorkfiend:cybrwzrd: It may be an oxymoron to call myself this - but I think I am a progressive libertarian. I will always deeply believe that limited government is the best way to govern, with as few laws as necessary to provide for a cohesive society. I also understand that most people are greedy assholes and will abuse any political system to benefit themselves at the expense of others. Due to this, there needs to be a safety net to prevent the powerful/rich from abusing the weak/poor. The powerful/rich also need to be prevented from gaining too much power by stacking the deck in their own favor by buying politicians - even if it means sky-high taxes to prevent massive wealth accumulation and policies that prevent intergenerational wealth transfer.

I know that the left tries to portray libertarianism as the belief system of right wing religious loonies and fascist-capitalists, but both of these groups want to use the rule of law to benefit their agenda. There is nothing libertarian about allowing looters of any group (in this case the investor class/corporate types and religious fanatics) to use the force of law to stack the deck in their favor. These people are no more Libertarian than Evangelicals are Christian. These types believe that freedom is the right to never be held accountable for doing the wrong thing as long as you benefit from doing the wrong thing. Rand herself would be against that - it is called irrational selfishness or greed.

In my younger days I was an objectivist. I still am in many ways. I do believe in the Randian idea of rational selfishness. That is - doing what is best for yourself as long as it does not harm another. If you are a liberal and you think that you know the actual philosophy behind Objectivism just from osmosis by reading about it as told by looter-objectivists (most "Libertarians", tea party members, facist-capitalists, etc) then you might as well have formed your opinions about Judasim as told by the Iranians. The whole idea of o ...

Because the knuckle draggers out there who are so quick to attack Rand are otherwise occupied. He philosophy is flawed in many ways, but she, like Marx get alot of credit for stuff they didn't actually support.

er... GURCH SORRY FOR NOT FLINGING POO LIKE MOST CAVE MEN. THROW POO LESS MOUTH NOISE.

Obama's Reptiloid Master:NEEK SEEM TOO CONVINCED OF POWER OF NEEK ROCKS. PROBLEM IS MANY PRIVATE CAVES NOT CARE ABOUT NEEK ROCKS IF UGG AND BRUGG GIVE ROCKS INSTEAD. NEEK ASSUME ALL CAVEMEN RATIONAL ROCK USERS. NOT TRUE. OFTEN CIRCUMSTANCES AND IRRATIONALITY MAKE ROCK CHOICES.

NEEK NO CARE ABOUT ROCKS. NEEK ONLY CARE THAT UGG WANT ROCKS.

NEEK MAKE NO CLAIM ABOUT ROCK USER BEING RATIONAL.

Obama's Reptiloid Master:IF PRIVATE CAVES DO WRONG BUT UGG AND BRUGG STILL GIVE ROCKS, NEEK NOT HAVE ANSWER. NEEK GIVE IN OR STARVE BECAUSE NEEK GIVE UP POLITICAL POWER FOR ILLUSION OF FREEDOM. NEEK FORGET THAT ALL AUTHORITY NOT BAD.

BIG CAVE GIVE NEEK NO POWER. NEEK GIVE IN OR STARVE NOW.

NEEK NOT SCARED OF CHIEFS, NEEK JUST WANT OPTION TO SAY NEEK'S CAVE UNDER NEW CHIEF.

Obama's Reptiloid Master:INSTEAD, IF NEEK KEEP BIG CAVE, NEEK HAVE VOTE AT COUNCIL FIRE, SAME AS UGG AND BRUGG. BIG CAVE MUST LISTEN TO ALL VOICES AT COUNCIL FIRE. IF NEEK PERSUASIVE THEN BIG CAVE LISTEN.

Obama's Reptiloid Master:NEEK VOTE NEVER DEPRECIATE. NEEK FORGET DEMOCRACY IS SMART WAY. NEEK TOO WORRIED ABOUT PUBLIC AUTHORITY BECAUSE NEEK SEE IT. NEEK SHOULD FEAR PRIVATE AUTHORITY BECAUSE NEEK HAVE NO RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE. SURE, NEEK HAVE SHINY ROCKS, BUT PRIVATE CAVE MAY BE WILLING TO PASS ON NEEK ROCKS TO F*CK NEEK OVER IF NEXT NEEK JUST FALL IN LINE.

NEEK ALWAYS HAS VOTE WORTH RECIPROCAL OF NUMBER OF CAVEMAN. DEMOCRACY IS WAY FOR UGG AND BRUGG TO VOTE 2-1 OVER NEEK TO TAKE NEEK'S ROCKS.

CheatCommando:FuzedBox: Libertarianism is not anarchy, nor even close to it. Sure there's anarcho-libertarianism, a form of libertarianism but they are not the majority. Libertarianism in and of it self does not want to abolish government; it wants to streamline it and prune the branches.

/You guys are sure acting like the open-minded people you claim to be.//Smug assholes.///Don't want to live on this planet anymore.

As I said, there is nothing funnier than seeing a Libertarian react to the world giving their theory the intellectual respect it deserves. It's fully as idealistic and unfounded in the realities of nature as Marxism is, as someone else noted in the serious fraction of this thread.

NEEK NOT PAY ATTENTION SCOTUS. NEEK OWN IDEA FREEDOM BE USED AGAINST NEEK IN CITIZENS UNITEDROCK, SO NEEK VOICE BE EASILY DROWNED OUT BY BIG FREEDOM CHIEFS WHO LOVE THAT NEEK SHILL FOR. NEEK PLAN BACKFIRE. OR MAYBE NEEK JUST TOADIE.

Cussy-D:mrshowrules: is an ideal of the greedy and self serving suggesting that left to their own, people will look after each other

Then it's true that people will only look after each other through the initiation of force...via big government. It's true that libertarians might be self serving, but who isn't!? What they truly despise are the selfish that would rather take from them, the ones that refuse to participate in the "communal stewardship of the land" yet are first to figure out a way to get their entitled share of the crop. So with respect to being self serving.. We all are. The pilgrims learned this first hand and their decision to each start their own garden and trade/share and even give to those whom might have had a bad harvest made them strong and prosper. This was of coarse after the community garden ideal failed.

CROTCH NO LIKE LIBERTARIANS FOR TAKING THEIR SHARE OF ROCKS AND NOT WANTING TO PUT THEIR SHARE BACK TO REST OF TRIBE WHILE LIVING IN SAFETY OF TRIBE'S ROCKPILE WALLS THAT KEEP VELOCIRAPTORS OUT AT NIGHT

InmanRoshi:cybrwzrd: In my younger days I was an objectivist. I still am in many ways. I do believe in the Randian idea of rational selfishness. That is - doing what is best for yourself as long as it does not harm another

The trouble is that it's nothing more than a trite platitude that really means absolutely nothing. Most of the time people don't realize how their actions hurt others until the shiat hits the fan. You want to build a swimming pool. You stomp up and down that city has zoning laws that you have to follow, and that it's your property and you should do whatever you damn well feel like. Great philosophy, until you built a cheap swimming pool that leaks and contaminates all your neighbor's property and water supply.

Hence the need for laws to prevent things like that from happening. But I would disagree that building a pool from shoddy materials because it is cheap is rational. This love of cheaper is better in our society is greed, not rational selfishness.

GOOG SAID THIS IN EARLIER PARAGRAPH. GOOG SAYS LEARN TO READ SCRATCH MARKS ON SCREEN. *HOPS UP AND DOWN LIKE APE MAKING HOOTING NOISES*

NEEK NOT PAY ATTENTION SCOTUS. NEEK OWN IDEA FREEDOM BE USED AGAINST NEEK IN CITIZENS UNITEDROCK, SO NEEK VOICE BE EASILY DROWNED OUT BY BIG FREEDOM CHIEFS WHO LOVE THAT NEEK SHILL FOR. NEEK PLAN BACKFIRE. OR MAYBE NEEK JUST TOADIE.

NEEK FINE WITH CITIZENS UNITEDROCK GIVING MOUNTAINS OF ROCKS TO ANY GIVEN CHIEF. NEEK WANT TO SAY NEEK'S CAVE HAS NEW CHIEF.

CAVEMEN WITH BIG ROCKS DON'T LIKE NEEK, THEY LIKE BIG CAVE AND SUPPORT BOTH CAVEMEN TRYING TO BE CHIEF OF BIG CAVE.

Pocket Ninja:Libertarians are the atheists of the political world, in that many of them will loudly and frequently tell you they are that thing, but a very small percentage of them -- a miniscule amount, really -- actually know what being that thing means. Most of them have chosen to self-label as a reaction to something else, not out of conscious selection, and almost none of them can identify more than the most patently obvious truisms about their "chosen" belief system. They know what they've been told, or what they've read about being told, and that's about it.

kind of like how republican means pro-life and democrat means gay-rights. Didigetitright?

Ed Grubermann:RobertBruce: Ed Grubermann: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: Every libertarian utopia somehow revolves around people living off the land in some rural outpost. The trouble is commerce and capitalism encourages population density. I'd love to hear how libertarianism works in a condensed urban environment where 9 million people are forced to share a finite amount of resources and land.

Same as now, except without laws other than those that protect body and property.

A polluted shiathole full of untested and dangerous goods? Sounds like paradise.

Kind of like now... or do you actually think the FDA is ethically run?

Well, not since big business interests gutted it, no. How is that a point in your favor?

Then what's the point? You're better off dealing with a business who acts in your interests because competition makes it happen.

cybrwzrd:Hence the need for laws to prevent things like that from happening.

Hence why libertarianism is trite platitude bullshiat for simpletons. Always sounds good in the text books and theory, and then you start giving real world examples and they say "Oh well, we would have laws that would cover that", over and over until it becomes really no different than our current society.

NEEK NOT PAY ATTENTION SCOTUS. NEEK OWN IDEA FREEDOM BE USED AGAINST NEEK IN CITIZENS UNITEDROCK, SO NEEK VOICE BE EASILY DROWNED OUT BY BIG FREEDOM CHIEFS WHO LOVE THAT NEEK SHILL FOR. NEEK PLAN BACKFIRE. OR MAYBE NEEK JUST TOADIE.

NEEK FINE WITH CITIZENS UNITEDROCK GIVING MOUNTAINS OF ROCKS TO ANY GIVEN CHIEF. NEEK WANT TO SAY NEEK'S CAVE HAS NEW CHIEF.

CAVEMEN WITH BIG ROCKS DON'T LIKE NEEK, THEY LIKE BIG CAVE AND SUPPORT BOTH CAVEMEN TRYING TO BE CHIEF OF BIG CAVE.

InmanRoshi:RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: Every libertarian utopia somehow revolves around people living off the land in some rural outpost. The trouble is commerce and capitalism encourages population density. I'd love to hear how libertarianism works in a condensed urban environment where 9 million people are forced to share a finite amount of resources and land.

Same as now, except without laws other than those that protect body and property.

So basically a 3rd world shiate hole? Gotcha.

What's your alternative:? a giant armed group that takes things from others that you want? mafia or government... hard to say which you mean.